It is clear that I am a theist, and have little patience with the atheists here who despise

[Thats my opinion]

all religion and spend their time lambasting it, NEVERTHELESS,
when it comes to the fight for values, I count as my partners those of religion or no religion who stand with us in these vial struggles. They are my colleagues!

This has been spelled out for me in a recent long piece in Alter Net. We progressives of any stripe need all the partners we can get, and I applaud non-believes who are in the struggle for human rights etc.

http://www.alternet.org/story/155370/why_atheists_have_become_a_kick-ass_movement_you_want_on_your_side[link:http://|

[alfredo]

1. I don't mind the theist. I do mind the theocrat.

[bubbalubagus]

3. exactly. talk to an ultraconservative long enough and

be careful in choosing your words (so they don't clam up) and you can usually get them to admit that they wish the Bible was the only law on the land. and they seem to be completely blind to how dangerous an assertion that is, never mind the irony of hating the Taliban etc

[Thats my opinion]

11. I'm at a loss as to how thir relates to the OP nt

[Thats my opinion]

32. Any theocratic state--which is defined as a nation with an official state church,

would be anathema to all of us.

[alfredo]

36. I lived in a theocratic state. It was ugly and violent. The people rose up and

kicked the rulers out and installed a more just system. That system was Marxism. Not everyone would see that as a more just system, but compared to what they had, it was light years ahead.

[tama]

55. Finland etc. etc.

has one - or more - official state church. We've got Lutheran and Greek Catholic. The Lutheran state church responds relatively well to changes in general opinion.

Calling Finland 'theocratic state' and 'anathema to all of us' is totally justified, as it's obviously God of Finland that is destroying this planet by using up most of the natural resources, building biggest war machine on Earth and making war here and there for the glory of Finnish military-industrial complex.

Never mind the theocracy of Mammon of USA and Global capitalism, as it's not official state church, just de facto theocracy, and de jure definitions are all that matter.

[edcantor]

2. I was thinking this was a personal opinion of the OP

But it's just another article.

Most theists are certainly nothing but pragmatists when it comes to the bottom line, I guess.

Atheists, by contrast, never have to imagine anything to be pragmatists, and admit to it right off the bat without all that religious folklore and belief requirements getting in the way.

The question I have: what does all that belief structure get one if one comes out at the same place at the atheist's position in the end? Does that apply to all theists? Certainly NOT! So theism is just fine if it comes out at the same place as progressive atheists? I'm not sure I see how that works.

[patrice]

4. So, what is the justification for variation when the ends are the same?

- We don't need a variety of artists to play the same piece of music.
- My daughter's professional field, graphic arts, is a sham; one picture is the same as another & all of those type fonts are useless & who needs more than three colors.
- Nutrition doesn't need different ways to combine the same ingredients.
- Limit grammar to subject verb object, variations in structure don't communicate anything and poesy is useless.
- The whole is never greater than the sum of its parts.
- Synonyms are pointless. Connotation means nothing . . .

[Thats my opinion]

12. It does not apply to all theists--just as no perspective applies to all atheists.

Whether you can see it or not--it does work.

I posted the link because I believe it has something important to offer with which I can identify.

[alfredo]

22. The Democrats are a coalition of different coalitions. Theist, Atheist, Jews, Greens, and anti war

activist come together for a common goal. At times things get testy, but we come together when the chips are down. I'm an Atheist, but I have no problem with working with Theist who live the teachings of Christ.

[cbayer]

35. +1 - well said, alfredo

[trotsky]

5. I have little patience for theists here who despise atheism and say things like:

"None of us would want to live in a society without some sort of an ethical sensitivity based on solid religious faith."

And have never explained WHY they believe this, and have certainly never apologized for it.

[alfredo]

23. Moral standards that come from within are preferable, but some that lack

that moral compass or fear they don't have it, look for external control. The church can provide that along with the support of fellow members. That is the ideal, but they are human organizations and will reflect the strengths and weaknesses of its leader.

[skepticscott]

6. So why do YOU constantly have to try

to drag religion into the mix?? That's you doing that...all you...all the time.

And your claim that there are atheists here who despise ALL religion is just another damned lie. Stop it.

[Dorian Gray]

10. That poster does bring religions into the mix

primarily in the Religion Group. A totally appropriate place to do so, isn't it? And a totally appropriate place to disagree with him, as well.

Regardless, I think that there are moments where people of completely different beliefs can meet in the middle. There are arguments worth having with one another, and then there are fights worth joining up for. Election coming up, and I believe that we will all work together in our own way to make sure that Mitt Romney does not become the next president of the USA. And there are other fights along the way that I hope we all join together.

And then, of course, the intra-group bickering will re-commence, if it ever stops.

[Thats my opinion]

13. Meeting in the middle is not what I have in mind.

Rather finding common cause even if we cannot find the middle, is my concern.

[Dorian Gray]

40. That's what I meant

I suppose. Bad semantics on my part.

[skepticscott]

18. Thanks for missing the point completely

The point was not whether this is, in general, an appropriate place to bring up religion. The point is (and has been through many of this poster's diatribes) that he constantly claims on the one hand (as he has done here) that religion need not be present and is not necessary for positive social change, while at the same time being unable to leave religion and religious motivations out of it. Can't have it both ways. He tried in a previous thread to argue that religion was a necessary force behind the civil rights movement, and had that argument eviscerated.

[Dorian Gray]

39. I don't think I missed the point

I read off and on. I know that he's held to the position religion is responsible for the morality and ethics that he upholds as a democrat. I also understand why that is insulting to the non-religious.

But, if this isn't the place to bring up religion, then where is?

I get why his thought processes might be insulting to you. But it's a discussion worth having and to see if you can find middle ground might be worth it.

[Starboard Tack]

66. Methinks it is you that continually misses the point in favor of personally attacking TMO

Your concern appears to be more about eviscerating his arguments, rather than joining him in common cause. What do you care if he said religion was a "necessary" force in the civil rights movement, rather than an "important" force, which we all know it was. You seem to resent his evolution and his willingness to grow. I hope I am still able to be as open when if and when I reach his age. He demonstrates a maturity of both mind and spirit that we could all learn from.

[skepticscott]

73. So which is it?

Am I attacking his arguments, or am I attacking HIM, personally? I think we both know the answer, and that there is a huge difference, even though he constantly tries to conflate one with the other.

And yes, it absolutely does matter if people keep trying to claim that religion was absolutely necessary for the achievement of this or that desirable goal, and that the goal could not have been attained without it. Do you really, really need to have it explained why?

[humblebum]

24. "And your claim that there are atheists here who despise ALL religion is just another damned lie"

Now that's a "damned lie."

[skepticscott]

44. Prove me wrong, then

Prove that there are atheists on this board who have experienced all religion, and actively despise every single solitary bit of it.

Oh, right...you have trouble with that proofy, evidency stuff. I'm sure that won't stop you from blathering on just to get the last word in.

[Goblinmonger]

45. There are other ways of knowing

than proof and evidence.

[humblebum]

46. The simple words "I hate religion" or " All religion is BS" or any similar comment

is pretty common here. Or the oft quoted Hitchens' line, "... show ridicule hatred and contempt for religion."

You are pretty sparse on the "proofy, evidency stuff" yourself with all of the red herrings you have been spouting lately.

[skepticscott]

47. Nice try at deflection

but more of your lame, diversionary bullshit. Saying "all religion is BS" is not remotely the same thing as "despising" it, as anyone with an honest brain would know. And when someone says they hate religion, they are referring to specific manifestations of it, and not every single solitary religion and religious expression in existence. As far as Hitchens, the only reason that line is "oft quoted" here, is because YOU like to repeat it over and over. Show me one other person who's used it as often as you.

You've failed to show evidence of even ONE atheist here who despises ALL religion, let alone multiple ones, as the OP claimed. Nor of my so-called "red herrings". Just more of your lies, which is about all you have any more.

Rounds are over.

[humblebum]

48. Speaking of lame and diversionary, you have just been proven wrong, but if you insist

on the exact words "hate all religion" - "I hate, hate, hate all religions" or "I despise all religions equally." And such quotes can easily be found simply by using the search function. But I am certain you will come up with another red herring to cover yourself.

[skepticscott]

49. You provided NO proof, NO evidence, NO links, as usual

And I didn't choose the words "atheists here who despise all religion" As in ALL..as in every single bit of every single religion. The OP did. I simply called bullshit on that claim, and on your support of it.

Fail. Crash. Burn.

[humblebum]

50. Another red herring. nt

[laconicsax]

51. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

[cleanhippie]

118. Holy shit!

If, and I do mean IF, he had even a SHRED of credibility left, it is now all gone after that last exchange.

And this is the ONE reason I do not have him on Ignore. Look at the funny I would have missed!

[laconicsax]

119. I'm waiting for the only unused ridiculous response:

"An expected response from an Obama supporter"

[laconicsax]

125. It wouldn't be DU any other way. n/t

[AlbertCat]

41. there are atheists here who despise ALL religion is just another damned lie.

Really. It takes too much energy to "despise" all religion.

Trying to ignore it is annoying because religion won't LEAVE US ALONE! But calling that despising all religion is going a bit far. Like thinking that people who disagree with you DESPISE you.... just a little hysterical and way over the top.

[Starboard Tack]

64. Duh! It's the RELIGION GROUP

Why do you come here if you dislike religion so much?

[skepticscott]

77. Is the room intended solely

for posts which display fawning, unquestioning, uncritical praise and adoration for religion? Please tell me you don't think so.

And I'm not the one who keeps saying (dishonestly, it appears) that religion is not relevant to something, and then posting about it in the religion group anyway, now am I?

[Starboard Tack]

98. WTF are you talking about?

So why do YOU constantly have to try to drag religion into the mix?? That's you doing that...all you...all the time.

And your claim that there are atheists here who despise ALL religion is just another damned lie. Stop it.

It's his OP, in the RELIGION GROUP. He tries once again to bring people together and you unleash your unwarranted, spiteful attack against him because he mentions religion?

What does

"Is the room intended solely for posts which display fawning, unquestioning, uncritical praise and adoration for religion?"

have to do with anything? Who said it was. Obviously it is not. Everyone who participates in this group, including the OP, recognizes the negative effects religion has played over the ages and how men have used it for personal power and greed.

You appear to be obsessed with attacking those who do not share your vitriol for people of faith. Well, I have news for you. Most atheists are easy going, live and let live, respectful people, who don't despise others for their beliefs. We may despise some of those beliefs, but not the believers. The man you are attacking is at the forefront of the progressive liberal movement, a life long Democrat and fighter for civil rights, who still, in his ninth decade, probably does more for our common cause than almost any of us. He happens to be a christian. So what?
You need to stop trying to divide us along religious lines and get with the program.

[skepticscott]

100. Uh, you were the one who asked ME

"Why do you come here if you dislike religion so much?" You do remember that, don't you? That's what my reply had to do with. Apparently it was a little too complicated. As was the distinction between attacking someone personally and criticizing their claims and opinions.

And to accuse me of trying to divide "us" (whoever that is) along religious lines is beyond ludicrous. Religion does quite a fine job of creating division all by itself, and has been doing so for thousands of years.

Quite ironic too, that you also try to argue that religion is irrelevant to what he's posting ("He happens to be a christian. So what?&quot while wondering why anyone would ask why he keeps trying to inject religion into every post. If you or he thought religion had nothing to do with these posts, and that they were solely about social and economic justice, they could just as easily have been posted in GD.

[Starboard Tack]

101. OK, I got it. Thanks.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

7. As a nonbeliever...

...I espouse Progressive values because it's the right thing to do, rather than because of some nebulous religious argument. The "struggle for human rights", as you put it, is often also a struggle against religion. And yes, I will continue to lambast religions that are the root cause of those human rights problems.

[Lacipyt]

58. So what do you know?

"Progressive values" are "the right thing to do?" And you know this, how? Do you have an innate understanding of right and wrong? That is something I lack, and wish to know how to acquire it. Is there some formula, empirically tested, of course, that allows you to rest easily knowing you are in the right?

The "struggle for human rights", as you put it, is often also a "struggle against religion." Now without a qualifier like "some" or "most," using a noun like "men" or "religion," it's fair to assume you mean ALL of said group and not merely a part of it.

You strike me as the type utterly, happily ignorant of the the U.S. Bishops urging federal immigration reform, an end to the embargo in Cuba, applaud the repeal of the death penalty in CT, issue an ecumenical document on the connection between the Eucharist and environmental stewardship, call on the President to ban landmines, and argue that the Federal Budget must not reduce aid to the poor and vulnerable because you're just, obsessed, maybe, with sex and how they stand on those issues.

I can understand that. I was young and virile once myself. I've discovered, happily, there is more to life than that.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

59. I certainly don't ascertain Progressive values

through a religious context. Those values are self evident, and don't require a religious framework for their derivation. It's about humanity, and if you lack that, I feel pity for you.

You strike me as the type utterly, happily ignorant of the the U.S. Bishops urging federal immigration reform, an end to the embargo in Cuba, applaud the repeal of the death penalty in CT, issue an ecumenical document on the connection between the Eucharist and environmental stewardship, call on the President to ban landmines, and argue that the Federal Budget must not reduce aid to the poor and vulnerable because you're just, obsessed, maybe, with sex and how they stand on those issues.

After a grand total of 2 posts, you've got me all figured out? Enjoy your stay at DU.

[Lacipyt]

60. Self-Evident?

To whom? You certainly can subscribe to that belief, but you offer nothing in the way of data that can be verified, only condescending remarks about pity.

I made no claims to "figuring" you out, but you do, however, come across as someone who doesn't seem too aware that the US Bishops don't spend all their time and energy on issues related to reproduction. As a religious liberal, I've heard more than my share of snide remarks. I get that, it's not as fun when politics isn't so black and white.

But since you raised the issue, are you aware of those positions, or do you just assume every Christian thinks the world is 6000 years old and Jesus promised them a house with a three car garage?

[EvolveOrConvolve]

61. Nowhere did I say that it was black and white

All that I said is that I derive my Progressive values from something other than religion. And I honestly don't care what U.S. bishops do or don't do. If the KKK were to donate money to hungry children, would I laud them for their actions? I group the Catholic church in with other hate groups, because of its actions.

Catholic Church Urges Pupils to Sign Anti-Gay Marriage Petition
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/25/catholic-church-schools-gay-marriage

U.S. Bishops Urge Constitutional Amendment to Protect Marriage
http://www.americancatholic.org/News/Homosexuality/default.asp

Catholics, Mormons allied to pass Prop. 8
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/09/MNU1140AQQ.DTL

LA Catholics react to Prop 8 decision; many Catholics strongly supported the proposition
http://www.scpr.org/news/2012/02/07/31169/la-catholics-react-prop-8-decision-many-catholics-/

The Catholic Church has always condemned abortion as a grave evil...
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/abortion

Catholic sex abuse scandals
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases

Pope claims condoms could make African Aids crisis worse
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/17/pope-africa-condoms-aids

Catholic League President Compares Pro-Choice Groups To Neo-Nazis
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/05/07/479562/donohue-pro-choice-neo-nazis/?mobile=nc

Bill Donohue: Child Molesting Priests Weren’t Pedophiles Because Most Boys Were Post Pubescent
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/bill-donohue-child-molesting-priests-weren

But since you raised the issue, are you aware of those positions, or do you just assume every Christian thinks the world is 6000 years old and Jesus promised them a house with a three car garage?

Can you show me where I said that? Or even came close to saying something like that? Thanks.

[Lacipyt]

62. I L-U-V It!

Yes, you did, but you also stated that they were "the right thing" even though you offer zero in the way of evidence. Funny, you then compare the Catholic Church to the KKK. You still wonder why I'd ask if you think all Christians are creationists?

You remind me of the old joke, "What is a prejudice?"

"Things other people have."

Don't read this article, by the way. You'll get terribly confused at the state of the world:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/27/AR2009032702825.html

[EvolveOrConvolve]

63. Yep, I made a comparison between the KKK and the Catholic Church

Although that's a bit unfair - the Catholic Church has caused far more damage than the KKK and is a far more dangerous organization because it has mainstream acceptance for its existence.

And notice that I compared the Catholic Church to the KKK. What I didn't do was compare Catholics to skinheads. There's a subtle difference there.

Don't read this article, by the way. You'll get terribly confused at the state of the world:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/27/AR2009032702825.html

So, you're defending the pope's statements about condoms? Un-fucking-believable.

[humblebum]

65. Would you also then dare to compare militant atheism to the KKK?

After all, it too has a very violent and bloody history - Russia, China, Mexico, France, Eastern Europe, South Asia, etc.

[daaron]

67. To be fair, that's not an apt comparison.

If it's history we're talking about, someone needs to re-read their Matthew 7:5. One might go so far as to argue that it's an intellectually dishonest argument; but at the very least no Christian apologist ought to say, "You non-believers did it, so we can do it!" That doesn't sit right with me.

[humblebum]

69. "You non-believers did it, so we can do it!" -

but it's alright to say, "You believers did it, so we can do it?" Actually, it's historical fact.

[daaron]

71. Sudo !!

[EvolveOrConvolve]

68. No, but I would compare communism to the KKK

In the modern world, there really isn't any "militant atheism". That's a canard dreamed up by some to marginalize a group that scares the hell out of them.

[humblebum]

72. So you would compare an economic system to a hate group? nt

[EvolveOrConvolve]

74. If both the economic system and hate group

Are anti-human rights, then yes.

[humblebum]

81. Not done by communists

Cristeros colgados

[rug]

75. Why don't you compare it to NAMBLA while you're at it?

And you do object to its very existence, don't you?

"Although that's a bit unfair - the Catholic Church has caused far more damage than the KKK and is a far more dangerous organization because it has mainstream acceptance for its existence."

Come on, go all in.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

78. I don't object to its existence

But I do vehemently object to various elements of the church: misogyny, anti-LGBT views, cover up of child rape, etc. And I object to those that provide explicit support for the church while sweeping its regressive stances under the rug as if they didn't exist.

[rug]

80. Oh really?

What do you mean by this?

"it has mainstream acceptance for its existence"

I'm sure you meant to say the existence of "various elements of the church", didn't you?

Surely you would not make wholesale accusations.

As to your specific accusations, "And I object to those that provide explicit support for the church while sweeping its regressive stances under the rug as if they didn't exist.", do you care to name anyone directly?

[EvolveOrConvolve]

88. I thought I did name someone

What do you mean by this?

"it has mainstream acceptance for its existence"

What I mean is that the Catholic church is able to hide its regressive stances behind a veneer of respectability because of the forced tolerance of intolerance in the U.S.

If the Catholic church was strictly a charitable benefactor of worthy causes, I wouldn't consider it such a bad thing. But, its official stance on things like gay marriage and abortion and its coverup of the scores of sex abuse scandals taints it.

[rug]

90. Your position is evolving

in a rather convoluted way/

Such a reasonable post.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

94. Sure

Or, your interpretation of what you want my position to be is evolving.

[rug]

95. It's not my interpretation, it's your words.

Your intemperate words.

[skepticscott]

79. You seem to be the only one here

who wants to make that specific association. So have at it. Go all in.

[rug]

82. Oh you're right. "Criminal hate organization" is au courant.

[laconicsax]

83. Well, both NAMBLA and the RCC have a record of allowing child rape.

You set me up for that, right?

[rug]

84. That's incorrect.

Try again.

[laconicsax]

85. Sorry, does NAMBLA not approve of child rape?

I admit I'm not at all familiar with the organization beyond a South Park episode I saw over ten years ago.

[rug]

86. The RCC does not.

Try again.

[laconicsax]

87. So why did they abet the rape of so many children?

BTW: I notice we're using different verb tense.

[rug]

89. Covering up a crime is not abetting or approving or advocating a crime.

Try again.

[laconicsax]

91. No, but deliberately taking action that allows the crime to continue is.

Or should I be using "allowed" or "aided" instead?

I defer to your legal expertise.

[skepticscott]

93. It is truly mind-blowing

that people like this still need the concept explained. Or need to pretend that they do.

[trotsky]

126. What about providing a child rapist a clean slate and access to fresh victims?

Where does that fall into your classification scheme?

[Lacipyt]

105. Serious question.

This is from the New York Times back in February:

Hoping to quell anxiety after three members of the teaching staff were arrested and accused of sexual crimes involving students, Dennis M. Walcott, New York City’s schools chancellor, ordered a review of all substantiated cases of misconduct dating back to 2000 on Friday and pledged to remove any teachers who had engaged in sexually inappropriate behavior.

In two of the cases, the teacher or teacher’s aide had been found to have acted inappropriately with students at previous schools, but had been able to transfer. Education officials acknowledged on Friday that they had failed to notify the principals of the new schools of the earlier accusations. (Emphasis mine)

I don't bring this up not to defend the Church, whose collective actions of its officials is appalling and beyond excuse, but to make note that as a culture, we don't really care about children as a group. We like to make a big noise about specific incidents, but we really seem more interested in the drama than the trauma. I could mention Penn State, or the media pretty much ignoring Corey Feldman's declaration that pedophilia is a problem in Hollywood no one wants to address, but the point remains: Virtually any large institution will go out of its way to protect its members from such accusations. (As per Hollywood, look up Victor Salva and consider how he still gets work in the industry, or the disgusting way they defend Roman Polanski's behavior).

Let me repeat: The Church's actions are indefensible. They are, tragically, not unique in this regard. This is a cultural problem, and it stretches beyond any religious organization.

[laconicsax]

110. Were you meaning to ask a question or were you commenting on mine?

I agree with what you've posted here but would note that what distinguishes the Church as especially vile in this regard is that it holds itself up as an arbiter of morality and did so while actively protecting serial child rapists and creating conditions that ensured their ability to continue.

[Lacipyt]

121. Good Point

Should have written, "Serious comment."

But while I find the Church's behavior in this matter vile, all the aforementioned groups have a CYA approach to the matter. I don't think any organization that tries to sweep such incidents under the rug is somehow less vile (like pregnancy or sentience: it either is or isn't) or acceptable.

[laconicsax]

123. Unfortunately, there have been DUers who have attempted to excuse the Church's behavior.

I see you're new here, welcome to DU.

[cleanhippie]

106. Interesting. Is there a link between NAMBLA and the RCC?

For someone who really hates talking about the pedo-priest problems in the RCC I find it ironic that you bring up NAMBLA.

[rug]

107. The only link I've seen is the cartoons you posted.

[cleanhippie]

108. Me too. I guess they work independently of each other.

[rug]

109. Keep digging, you'll find a connection somehow.

[cleanhippie]

111. Aside from the pedophilia, I doubt there are other connections.

But who knows, maybe they will form an alliance some day. THAT would certainly blow some minds, huh?

[rug]

112. Pedophilia itself is not a connection.

[cleanhippie]

113. I guess you're right. It's more of the refusal to effectively deal with their members who practice

it.

But that's just splitting hairs.

Thanks for the civil conversation, rug. It's been a pleasure.

[rug]

114. That is the point exactly.

The hierarchy had an appalling - and often criminal - reaction.

Despicable as it is, it is still different, if not less culpable, from an organization specificaly formed for the sole purpose of advocacy for child rape.

[cleanhippie]

115. I do not disagree, but there is a common thread, and that is pedophilia.

Not really sure why you are arguing against that point.

[laconicsax]

120. "The hierarchy had an appalling - and often criminal - reaction."

So why do continue to support them?

[Lacipyt]

104. I Am Flattered

That you think I'm as enior research scientist at the Harvard School of Public Health. I'm not. But the person who wrote that article, Edward Green, is.

If I may quote from his article about the Pope's comments, "current empirical evidence supports him."

See, the problem with you is I know your type. You enjoy hyperbolic statements that try to rile up religious folk. Unfortunately for you, I've lived and worked in the real world.

I also love your distinction without a difference. It's like when conservatives say, "Liberals are evil" but then insist, "I didn't say you were evil." Let your prejudices and ignorance shine. If you're going to do it at least be proud.

I never actually said that I am defending the Popoe's statements about condoms. What I did write is that the world is far more complex than you might want to imagine it. There was a report on NPR (that cauldron of conservative thought!) about the HIV rate in Washington DC. Despite a large program of condom distribution, it did nothing to curb the infection rate. There are likely myriad reasons for this, but I'm sure you'll figure out some way to blame the Pope and the KKK.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

117. Put on your Sunday best, kids!

We've got ourselves an apologist in the house.

See, the problem with you is I know your type. You enjoy hyperbolic statements that try to rile up religious folk. Unfortunately for you, I've lived and worked in the real world.

It's not hyperbole if it's the truth.

[Lacipyt]

122. Two News Stories

Just can't compete with an icon that laughs and rolls on the floor. Maybe one day when you stop coloring books you'll read a few. There is always hope...

[Thats my opinion]

128. Hang in there!! nt

[mr blur]

129. Congratulations, you seem to have come to the right place -

Evasions, false equivalence, obfuscation - you should fit right in.

[LaurenG]

8. Yikes

If you want to bring groups of believers vs non believers together you might want to leave religion out of it. You do understand how "applauding non believers for being interested in human rights" is condescending, as if only believers care.

It makes me want to ask how god would feel about that arrogant put down.

[Thats my opinion]

9. To all of you,

i still affirm you as valuable colleagues. In the trenches we do not ask for motivations. We come from different motivations. I respect yours. I can only hope that you allow me to have mine, even if you don't respect it.

As for "leaving religion out." Unless I miss my guess, that is the title of this group.

Did you bother to read the link?

[LaurenG]

14. Let me try again

1st no I didn't read the link I was responding only to your words.
2nd Why would religion determine who is a valued colleague?
3rd I am not talking about where you posted this I am talking about wanting to bring groups together and that won't happen when religion is brought into a discussion about human rights.

in my experience religious people have been notoriously judgmental and unconcerned with human rights unless it falls into their religion whereas atheists don't need to know what you believe in order to care or to help you. It has been my experience that as human beings they aren't going to try and take birth control or choice from me, they won't force me to feel guilty because I am not atheist and I have never once been told that I am a heathen or that I am going straight to hell if I didn't do what an atheist said.

For the record I am neither atheist or agnostic and I have experienced many different Christian churches including Mormon, Catholic, Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist, Lutheran, Episcopalian, Assembly of God, Unity, Church of the Nazarene and my great grandmother was a Nazarene tent preacher. I had friends of every religion and no religion and my anecdotal experience was that when the chips were down no church friends came to help me but my atheist friend did. I realize that others mileage may vary but I take offense when religious people act morally superior to anyone else not like them.

[Thats my opinion]

33. Thanks for the response

Religion does not determine who can be a colleague. Colleagues are any folks who share common objectives, and who recognize each other.

I'm sorry you have had such a negative experience with religious people. That is all too common. I know the down side of it--but it is not the only side. And it is certainly not the experience of many others.

Religion and human rights are bound together historically in even now. Religion and religious people cannot be eliminated from the discussion of human rights. Examples are ubiquitous.

[xfundy]

15. Who's not allowing you to have your theological/theocratic beliefs?

I'd say that most, if not all, nonbelievers don't care what you believe, as long as it has no bearing on anyone else's life.

Surely by now you've discovered that you won't win any arguments by claiming a book or deity "sez so," yet your often smug arguments are grounded by nothing more than your imaginings or beliefs in a big daddy in the sky; in the back of your mind, you imagine everyone you argue with here will be punished by your invisible friend who, by pure coincidence, hates the same people you do.

If you want to argue rationally, you have to possess at least some degree of rationality.

[LTX]

26. I'm a bit surprised

that there isn't more caution employed in tossing around the "big daddy in the sky" and "invisible friend" taunts. After all, "big sky daddies" and "invisible friends" are remarkably prevalent in humans. You could easily conclude that we have an inevitable need for them, given their apparent universality. That your own "big sky daddies" and "invisible friends" appear more efficacious does not make them any more "visible" or less mysterious.

[mr blur]

27. Absolute nonsense.

"big sky daddies" and "invisible friends" are remarkably prevalent in humans

So what?

So is fear of death. So what?

[LTX]

31. I agree. Curiosity is for the weak.

Soup, tv, and oblivion. And the rest of that immaterial stuff? So what. Just ignore that thing, whatever it is, behind the curtain. You'll be much better off.

[AlbertCat]

42. Just ignore that thing, whatever it is, behind the curtain.

What thing?

The laws of physics? Because that's all there is "behind the curtain".

I don't ignore them, because they cannot be ignored or circumnavigated.

[LTX]

43. Well, the laws of physics are not alone.

There's mathematics, which is often relegated to the position of handmaiden, but in my view, precedes physics as a fundamental explanatory construct. And there are laws (or rules, if you prefer) of chemistry, genetics, neurobiology, geophysics, astrophysics, etc.

But sticking to the known (and evolving) laws of physics, what, exactly, are they? Are they discovered? Invented? They are indeed behind the material curtain. Just as there is no mathematics particle, there is no law-of-physics particle. They permit us to both explain and manipulate the material curtain, but the material curtain does just fine without our imposition of them.

Their unreasonable efficiency (to borrow the mathematics coinage) is coupled with their perfect abstraction, an immaterial overlay on the material world. Personally, I find that both surpassingly weird and a very good reason to keep prying them open.

Which, of course, leads to another "thing" behind the curtain -- the seemingly intrinsic need of humans to employ mathematics and science, to expand them, and to explore and explain the material curtain. Where does that come from? All we need to do as self-replicators, if the relevant scientific laws themselves are to be believed, is eat and reproduce. But we are compelled by something to do more, including that apparently most useless of endeavors, theoretical math and physics. I can't discern the reproductive advantage in that. Can you?

People can, of course, ignore the weirdness of all this and get along just fine. Most do, essentially saying "so what"? But it wakes me up at 3:00 am and forces me to make a pot of coffee.

[AlbertCat]

53. People can, of course, ignore the weirdness of all this

Thank god!

[LTX]

57. And thank man

for whiskey. Because once you start thinking about the nature of an evolving machine that early on laid a rectilinear and curvilinear grid over a fractal world, you'll need a drink. : )

[Starboard Tack]

70. 'The laws of physics? Because that's all there is "behind the curtain". '

Really? Not much imagination going on in your world, is there?
Did you ever stop to think that maybe we don't actually understand everything yet? If we did, there would be no point in any further scientific research.
Makes me wonder what a sad place some people inhabit. I fear my mind shutting down way more than I fear death.

[AlbertCat]

92. Not much imagination going on in your world, is there?

I beg your frigging pardon? (I'm a costume designer & maker who particularly likes to design for dance.... no imagination going on here! )

"Did you ever stop to think that maybe we don't actually understand everything yet? "


Who said we understand everything (besides you)? What the hell are you talking about? Who even said we knew what the laws of physic are? We seem to know some of them. Enough to get a spaceship the size of a VW bug to the frigging outer planets. (That was the Voyager project in case your oh so imaginative brain forgot).

The saddest place to inhabit is believing a bunch of new age crap or supernatural baloney is somehow "more imaginative" than real science, and thinking those who don't get all excited over such flimsy supernatural swill are unimaginative, in a "sad place" and their mind is shutting down. Such arrogance and close mindedness dressed up as somehow progressive is simply pitiful!

[Starboard Tack]

96. LOL! You said it.

'The laws of physics? Because that's all there is "behind the curtain". '

I have no idea how imaginative your designs or your costumes are and don't care. We are talking about what is "behind the curtain" and you said the laws of physics, that's it, nothing more, nada, rien, niente, fucking zero.
Well I got news for you. Those laws aren't all written yet. That's why we have theories and hypotheses and thoughts about things beyond designing costumes or sending VW bugs to neighboring planets. Some of us travel beyond our own backyard in our inquiry. Some of us just sit around admiring our new fingernail polish, considering how progressive it is.

[eqfan592]

97. You do understand...

...that even tho "those laws aren't all written yet," it doesn't change the fact that they would STILL be laws of physics. So his original statement would still hold true. You are not actually countering his argument at all, just adding on to it. Saying that the laws of physics are all there is behind the curtain and saying that we KNOW all those laws are two VERY different statements. Your argument would work as a counter to the latter of the two arguments (the one that was never made here), but not the former.

[Starboard Tack]

99. Sure. I understand that.

The fact that today's theory, when proven, becomes tomorrow's law, doesn't change the fact that it was a law to start with. Only our labeling changes.
The unproven, unknown and as yet, unconsidered laws are also behind the curtain. There are many phenomena which continue to go unexplained by any known laws of physics. Until we know everything, some people will find the need for an easy religious explanation for these phenomena, some will dismiss them as delusional, and others will keep open, yet critically enquiring minds, along with a healthy dose of skepticism.

[LTX]

102. Just as a quibble (well, more than a quibble).

Scientific theories don't become laws, just as houses don't become bricks. Theories are explanatory constructs that employ laws and observational data. Theories can be dis-proven, and modified to accommodate new evidence, but they are never "proven" ("proof" is really a mathematical concept). Theories and laws tell us very different things, and the notion that theories "grow up" to become laws kind of hits a nerve with me.

[daaron]

103. Thank you, LTX. Hit's a nerve with me, too. nt

[Starboard Tack]

116. Thanks. I stand corrected.

[AlbertCat]

127. Some of us travel beyond our own backyard in our inquiry.

A good place to start this is to reject the supernatural and embrace the laws of physics that science shows us and muse on where they might lead us.


"Some of us just sit around admiring our new fingernail polish, considering how progressive it is."

Yes... the fingernail polish of supernatural gobbledygook that dried, cracked and started to peal centuries ago. It's still an old-hat color even if it's in a new bottle. And while your admiring your cracked obsolete polish, be sure to call others unimaginative while you accuse them of thinking they know everything. It's an ad hominem attack as old as the failed supernatural hypothesis.

[mr blur]

52. No, curiosity is for the rational - faith in the supernatural is for the weak.

Soup, tv and sunday rituals. Just ignore reality. You' ll be a good Christian and the scary life stuff won't hurt you.

[LTX]

56. Which means that

"so what" is necessarily an irrational response.

[Thats my opinion]

34. I just never respond to those who make those snarky put downs.

[laconicsax]

16. You wrote:

"None of of would want to live in a society without some sort of an ethical sensitivity based on solid religious faith"

Despite being told countless times how offensive that is to non-believers, you never have apologized or retracted the statement. Rather, you derided those who explained the offense to you and continued to insult non-believers.

So I hope you'll forgive me for doubting your sincerity when you say "we come from different motivations. I respect yours." It would seem that even if you do respect it, you don't respect it enough to respect us.

[rexcat]

17. Hammer hits nail...

It would appear that Trotsky and you will not get a response from TMO.

After reading his journal entry me thinks he thinks atheists have not done a damn thing for humanity and religious people obviously have been responsible for all the good that humanity has done through the ages. His intent is clear.

[skepticscott]

19. As usual, the poster in question

will flee from this and try to pretend it never happened. Such courage.

[rexcat]

20. It is hard to ignore the facts...

but that does happen on rare occasion here by certain posters.

[mr blur]

28. Ding ding! Winner! nt

[stopbush]

21. Is it wrong to despise Republican economic policies?

If not, then what could possibly be wrong with despising religion?

I ask, because both Republican economic policies and religion are fantasy-based enterprises at worst, mere opinions at best.

In this country, one can despise opinions that one finds odious. Religion doesn't get a pass.

[Iggo]

25. Whatevs.

[mr blur]

29. I guess we don't find you as interesting and important

as you seem to find yourself.

Such is life.

[SidDithers]

37. 3-3 to leave your post...

At Thu May 17, 2012, 08:49 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

I guess we don't find you as interesting and important
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=27717

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

a personal attack with no relationship to the subject of the string.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu May 17, 2012, 09:09 PM, and the Jury voted 3-3 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Kind of rude, but I've seen a lot worse.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: I feel it was a personal attack that was unrelated to subject.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: Rude
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

I was 3 or 6.

Sid

[laconicsax]

38. #1 has pretty lousy standards.

"...but I've seen worse" basically means that anything goes as long as it's not the worst thing out there.

I wonder where they draw the line...

[2ndAmForComputers]

76. I approve this result, for post 29 conveys truth.

[Angry Dragon]

30. ...........

[xfundy]

54. I really doubt anyone "despises" you for your beliefs.

And, I'd say that your thinking in those terms sets you up as a sort of "martyr," which you are not.

I don't care what you believe, as long as it has no effect on my rights. Why is that so hard to understand?

I think some folks of your persuasion go a little out of their way to indirectly manufacture some of that hatred your deity says will surround you in the "last days" or "end times," honestly. Take a breath. Watch a sunset. Examine a flower. Now, if you think some invisible man (don't even flag that, cuz it's true) "designed" that flower, or whether it evolved, is something you and I don't have to discuss, yes? So get over yourself and realize you don't know anything and I don't know anything about why we're on this planet, but, hey, it's cool, isn't it? And leave it at that. Geez.